https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102962
Daniel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||taf.undying at gmx dot de
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102962
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
FWIW, POSIX says this for its equivalent of lock_shared:
If the Thread Execution Scheduling option is not supported, it is
implementation-defined whether the calling thread acquires the lock when a
write
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102962
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Marco Mengelkoch from comment #2)
> I would understand if just the order is different or if one is much faster
> than the other.
We have two completely different implementations of std::share
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102962
--- Comment #2 from Marco Mengelkoch ---
> No, that's not a safe assumption at all. Libstdc++ uses the platform's
> pthread types, it doesn't define them itself.
I would understand if just the order is different or if one is much faster than
t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102962
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Marco Mengelkoch from comment #0)
> I know that there might be differences between compilers, but as this is
> basically both g++, I assumed that the application should work the same way.
No
